So a point of "viability" is the point in which you define when abortions should stop. I did read your entire post, I am sorry you are not going to take the time to read my own. In summary, parasite issue is degrading and wrong and that my point is the following:

1. This baby in the womb is scientifically a living human with distinct and scientifically verifiable qualities which confirm this fact. This is not, by definition a parasite or something other than a human with life and dignity.2. All innocent human life should be protected from death.3. Therefore, a baby in the womb should be protected from death.

Therefore, I believe you are saying one of the following:

1. The baby in the womb is either not human.2. That some innocent human life should not be protected from death (murder).

Thus, I am trying to find a place for life. Yet, in your most recent statement you said essentially #1 does not matter. Why? You said it does not matter when you define life.

Therefore, by your own admission you disagree with this phrase, "All innocent human life should be protected from death".

Of course I disagree with it. Death is not to be feared, nor do we need protection from it if the afterlife is as you believe. And when the life would not be a good life, when it would be full of pain and suffering and injustice, I am not the one to make the decision on if that person lives or not. It's not my choice to make. I can do what I can in supporting those in difficult decisions, of opening my heart and my home to them, of making donations, but I cannot condemn or shun those who are faced with that choice or the result of it.

That is the only rational conclusion to your last post. Therefore, you hold the same belief as Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, etc... I would be glad to argue for my viewpoint "that all innocent human life should be protected from murder."

*snort*

That is it in a nutshell. You do not believe all innocent human life should be protected from death (murder) and I do.

I accept that you believe it is murder, Decrease, but as a grown, thinking adult who has informed hersself quite a bit on this subject, I think I am owed the courtesy of respect of my beliefs and my refusal to make such a personal decision for others.

"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."
- M. MontessoriProud non-member of the HSLDA

So a point of "viability" is the point in which you define when abortions should stop. I did read your entire post, I am sorry you are not going to take the time to read my own. In summary, parasite issue is degrading and wrong and that my point is the following:

1. This baby in the womb is scientifically a living human with distinct and scientifically verifiable qualities which confirm this fact. This is not, by definition a parasite or something other than a human with life and dignity.2. All innocent human life should be protected from death.3. Therefore, a baby in the womb should be protected from death.

Therefore, I believe you are saying one of the following:

1. The baby in the womb is either not human.2. That some innocent human life should not be protected from death (murder).

Thus, I am trying to find a place for life. Yet, in your most recent statement you said essentially #1 does not matter. Why? You said it does not matter when you define life.

Therefore, by your own admission you disagree with this phrase, "All innocent human life should be protected from death".

Of course I disagree with it. Death is not to be feared, nor do we need protection from it if the afterlife is as you believe. And when the life would not be a good life, when it would be full of pain and suffering and injustice, I am not the one to make the decision on if that person lives or not. It's not my choice to make. I can do what I can in supporting those in difficult decisions, of opening my heart and my home to them, of making donations, but I cannot condemn or shun those who are faced with that choice or the result of it.

I did not say death is to be feared. I did say that all innocent life should be protected from "murder". In other words, someone's life should not be taken out of mere whims or choices. All life should be protected.

Whether you believe that this is a choice of a mother with her baby or a father with his aging mother, this is important notation.

I also do not shun people. Yet, I do believe that laws should state that all innocent life should be protected from murder. You, therefore, seem to point out that you disagree with the word "protected".

I was going to go another direction before I read your recent response. Let me make a philosophical point, if not all innocent human life should be protected, I think abortionists (and others) run into a problem. That problem is now showing why any life should be protected. I contend, it is impossible for any life to be shown as worthy of protection for the following reasons (these are religious presupostions, but I contend that without religion it is impossible to conclude human life has any worth whatsoever without resorting to circular reasoning, yet, I doubt many will disagree with my statement).

1. Humans have worth
2. Human worth is not based upon their ability, status, power, etc, that is granted by another human.

Therefore, humans have worth which is intrinsic to being a human.

If our worth is intrinsic and not based upon ability or status and yet a certain segment's life should not be protected, then I find it irrational to say that any segment should be protected.

So, back to that question. Can you rationally derive that any life should be protected? Why?

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH HOMESCHOOLING AND OBAMA? But I will play along and add a little more...

Personally I can't see how anyone can knowingly take the life of an unborn child and feel good about it. We had a very unplanned pregnancy and even though we really didn't have the resources for another child abortion never crossed my mind as even a possible option. He is now a few months old and has turned our house upside down but I wouldn't trade him for the world.

I also find it amusing that the NOT ALL but a lot of the same people who are pro killing unborn babies are the people who are anti death penalty. We can kill our children but not our criminals? So I refer to my earlier post. We dispose of our babies like paper plates.

Interesting fact...In NC an unborn child who's mother is murdered is not considered as a murder victim too. The person who killed that mother will only be charged with one murder; however, an unborn child CAN inherit property due to a family members death.

This generation is immoral and self-centered. It is all about "me" now. If something is going to inconvience someone they just dispose of it or ship it off to someone else to deal with. Think about it...a lot of moms don't even act like they want the kids they have. Work is more important so they ship them to daycare at 6 weeks old then when they get to be school age there are after school activities, in the summer there are camps and when they get old enough they get a key to the house and take care of themselves. What happened to the family unit? eating together? going out as a family? spending time together at home? playing with the kids?

But I guess if a human life isn't worth anything to you then family wouldn't be worth much either.

So maybe we should kill all the old people and all the kids in the foster care system. All the abused kids and don't forget the poor kids who don't have much. Where do we stop. Who are we to decide which life is important and which life is not? Because all of the above people are either a drain on the system or have the potential to have a very hard life.

Something to think about...What if your mom had decided you weren't worth it and aborted you. Think about all the people that would have affected. Are you a nurse? is your husband a doctor? Did one of your kids turn out to be a police officer who saved the life of someone or maybe a judge? How do you know that child that someone aborts wouldn't have found the cure to a disease or invented something great? You may say well someone else will do it, but how do you know that for sure.

I really think this got really off topic though and needs to get back on track. No one here is going to change anyones mind. Either you think it is OK to murder unborn children or you don't.

I was going to go another direction before I read your recent response. Let me make a philosophical point, if not all innocent human life should be protected, I think abortionists (and others) run into a problem. That problem is now showing why any life should be protected. I contend, it is impossible for any life to be shown as worthy of protection for the following reasons (these are religious presupostions, but I contend that without religion it is impossible to conclude human life has any worth whatsoever without resorting to circular reasoning, yet, I doubt many will disagree with my statement).

1. Humans have worth2. Human worth is not based upon their ability, status, power, etc, that is granted by another human.

Therefore, humans have worth which is intrinsic to being a human.

If our worth is intrinsic and not based upon ability or status and yet a certain segment's life should not be protected, then I find it irrational to say that any segment should be protected.

So, back to that question. Can you rationally derive that any life should be protected? Why?

Humans have worth and rights based on society and their relationship. A fetus does not have the rights of a viable human being.
You say that since a clump of cells has the potential for human life, and has human dna, it must be protected. What about an egg? What about sperm? Are we murderers each month in your eyes? There is the potential for human life, and yet we choose to not give it the rights you insist on.

I CANNOT make the choice for any other body but my own. It is not right of me to do so, nor is it my job to force others to comply with my belief system while sentencing to a lifetime of pain. I do not have the right to choose between a cancerous mother and a possible life, I don't have the right to tell a rape survivor that she must pay as well, I don't have the right to watch a woman in pain over an ectopic pregnancy that will kill her, just to feel rightous that I didn't allow the termination of the pregnancy.

It is not my choice, and it isn't yours, either. Your choices are for YOUR BODY, not anyone else's.

"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."

I was going to go another direction before I read your recent response. Let me make a philosophical point, if not all innocent human life should be protected, I think abortionists (and others) run into a problem. That problem is now showing why any life should be protected. I contend, it is impossible for any life to be shown as worthy of protection for the following reasons (these are religious presupostions, but I contend that without religion it is impossible to conclude human life has any worth whatsoever without resorting to circular reasoning, yet, I doubt many will disagree with my statement).

1. Humans have worth2. Human worth is not based upon their ability, status, power, etc, that is granted by another human.

Therefore, humans have worth which is intrinsic to being a human.

If our worth is intrinsic and not based upon ability or status and yet a certain segment's life should not be protected, then I find it irrational to say that any segment should be protected.

So, back to that question. Can you rationally derive that any life should be protected? Why?

Humans have worth and rights based on society and their relationship. A fetus does not have the rights of a viable human being.You say that since a clump of cells has the potential for human life, and has human dna, it must be protected. What about an egg? What about sperm? Are we murderers each month in your eyes? There is the potential for human life, and yet we choose to not give it the rights you insist on.

I CANNOT make the choice for any other body but my own. It is not right of me to do so, nor is it my job to force others to comply with my belief system while sentencing to a lifetime of pain. I do not have the right to choose between a cancerous mother and a possible life, I don't have the right to tell a rape survivor that she must pay as well, I don't have the right to watch a woman in pain over an ectopic pregnancy that will kill her, just to feel rightous that I didn't allow the termination of the pregnancy.

It is not my choice, and it isn't yours, either. Your choices are for YOUR BODY, not anyone else's.

Lily,

Wow, societal relationship argument? First, I would like for you to prove, based upon this criteria, that this is not a made up criterion.

Secondly, based upon your idea then human worth is not intrinsic to humanity. A hermit, in a cave who has very little societal relationships have less worth than a man who is a politician who knows thousands of people. Therefore, by your own assesment, you must conclude that not all humans are equal.

A Nursing home invalid has little or no human value. An infant has less human value than a 20 year old because their societal relationship is less.

Hitler also used this argument and stated that if someone had negative societal human relationship, like the Jews as he states in Mein Kempf, then they do not deserve the protection but should be eliminated. Would you say that a person could have negative societal relationships in which they should not longer be protected?

Stalin used this argument in the sense that he said government had the worth of all the humans in the government and that someone who caused problems (negative societal relationships) then they should be eliminated.

Thus, I want to ask a couple of questions.

1. Logically prove societal relationship.
2. Do you believe in negative societal relationship?
3. How do you justify a hermit (invalid, someone with Down Syndrome, etc) being treated any different than an unborn baby.
4. Are you saying that living humans have different worth and that we are not all "equal"?
5. Would you agree that societal relationship argument has resulted in racist ideas throughout history?
6. Why use this criteria... and why should any life be protected on this criteria?
7. Does this not make worth more of a popularity contest?

I reject that idea in that I do not believe any one human has any worth above another... human worth is intrinsic.

I do not think there is a contradiction among Pro-lifers. Namely, there is a distinction between murder and killing. Murder is always wrong. I defined murder throughout this as:

The taking of an innocent human life.

I place the word "innocent" there because there are cases in which I believe it to be just to take a human life. Take, for instance, someone who is about to murder your wife. I would consider it just to take that life as it is engaging in a violation of man's human worth in such a manner.

In a legal matter, that life after it murdered someone is also no longer innocent.

It does not mitigate the argument, in which your social construct is irrational and illogical. You are essentially using a form of a social darwinian argument, which I believe most philosophers have publicly denounced (though some still hold to a form of it).

As well, I think it is rational to compare to hitler and nazi-ism to this. Why? If you read Mein Kempf, he uses the social construct argument. That is why I asked for verification. All social construct arguments on human worth, in my opinion, are all destined for failure as they are all irrational. I think I showed that above. My argument was to show that your argument is the same Hitler used. The problem with Godwin's law is that there are legitimate comparisons... especially when one argument is the exact one that Hitler based his argument on. An easy way, logically, around this is to show the differences between yours and Hitler's argument. I showed the comparisons you can show the differences... which is rational (like I showed the differences between a baby and a parasite earlier... which was logical)

Yet, you still did not answer the questions.

BTW, my argumentation is mainly based upon Presuppositionalism and therefore I tend to argue on base arguments...

I do not think there is a contradiction among Pro-lifers. Namely, there is a distinction between murder and killing. Murder is always wrong. I defined murder throughout this as:

The taking of an innocent human life.

I place the word "innocent" there because there are cases in which I believe it to be just to take a human life. Take, for instance, someone who is about to murder your wife. I would consider it just to take that life as it is engaging in a violation of man's human worth in such a manner.

In a legal matter, that life after it murdered someone is also no longer innocent.

The key here is whether the person is innocent.

So, the fact that innocent people are put to death via the death penalty is what...just part of the process of attempting to take a non-innocent life? Collateral damage, if you will? So the taking of innocent life is only acceptable if it happens in the process of trying to take a non-innocent life?

If you believe that taking innocent life is wrong, then you should not be for something that takes innocent lives ever--and the death penalty does that.

If it is irrational, show how it is irrational. That is all you have to do. Saying my assessment is irrational does not make it so. I think I have made a fair comparison and you don't. I have shown how I believe my comparison is valid. You have not shown how you think it is invalid, you just say it is. I would be perfectly willing to see a distinction if shown, but it has not been shown.